Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

QKRTHNU

Regulars
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

QKRTHNU's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Boring For sure. That reminded me of when I visited the Beijing Zoo. They had an "American Beagle" on exibit. The looks we got when petting this caged animal were pretty amusing.
  2. This isn't entirely correct. The "Theorem of Poker" according to David Sklansky is: "Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose." Technically if you are playing in a game where the casino takes a cut, then you are playing against all of the players AND the casino. You are wagering the Rake (Casinos take) in the hopes that you will be able to win enough money from players with lesser skills to come out ahead after paying the Rake. If you were to constantly play at a table where all of the players (including you) were equally skilled* then there would be no skill advantage, and in the long run everyone would lose to the Rake (casino). The Rake can be viewed as an adversary or as a cost for services depending on your purpose in playing. If your goal is to make money, then it definitely factors in as a risk in playing and is something you are effectively playing against along with the other players. If you are playing for entertainment the Rake can be viewed as a charge for the services you receive, what is probably a more luxurious atmosphere than a home game, a professional dealer and in some casinos even "free"drinks served to you. *(Obviously the fact that poker is a game of incomplete information means that it isn't feasible for everyone to play "perfectly" in line with Sklansky's Theorem.)
  3. Clearly cost is not the determining factor in ethics; I mentioned cost as one of the reasons why we would see these products in the future. Check this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat - obviously this as with any technology will evolve significantly.
  4. The Changing Nature of Man and its effect on Ethics in regards to Animal life It is very probable (nearly inevitable) that in the near future mankind will have achieved the ability to mass produce meat and other animal products in an industrialized fashion. We will no longer be forced to raise (and in many cases destroy) an entire living animal to attain the desired materials, and it won't make economic sense to do so once the technology is mature. When we no longer need cows to produce cheeseburgers or cute furry animals to create beautiful fur coats, the Nature of Man will have been changed significantly as we no longer need to kill animals for survival or even for pleasure (Mmmmm, this is a tasty burger!) ; we will have further distanced ourselves from the hunter/gatherers of our past. Once this happens, how do you view this affecting our Ethics in dealing with Animals? Should it have any effect at all?
  5. I think choice is involved when talking about the animal. Talk to any animal trainer, animals are certainly capable of refusing to perform a task in which they have the knowledge and capacity to perform. Rewards are a key component in animal training. If the animal is not interested in the reward (they don't value it) then it is likely that they will refuse to work (note that in many cases praise/approval from the trainer is viewed as a reward). From my personal experience I can attest to the fact that there are certain tricks that my dog will perform with a much more willing attitude than others. He doesn't like to "roll over" and often times will attempt to perform some other trick that he enjoys (or is less physical work) thinking that he will still be rewarded. Eventually he will roll over, but he emits verbalizations that clearly express his begrudging compliance; this is especially the case when there is no potential reward visible. Occasionally he will perform the same trick without reservation if he happens to be really interested in the reward. Even then after several repetitions of the same command he will again verbalize his frustration and resentment for my continued demands.
  6. Obviously not, that is a bit of a silly question though. In this imaginary fight I would think that the fight would be cut short with the other dog winning. The humans are obviously ultimately in control and are the ones interpreting the actions of the dogs. Yes the rules only deal with specific behaviors. Generalized rules don't work out too well in competitive events. I’m sure there are many problems in the rules, this is a bit of a straw-man argument, I was originally trying to counter the idea that the desired trait was a dog that wants to continue to attack another dog that did not want to continue to fight; when that is a trait which would not be necessary, and in fact would lead to an unstable dog. I still don't agree that dogs bred for fighting are deficient in this regard. I'm not sure why you take that as fact. If that were the case then dogs bred for fighting couldn't possibly be kept in a pack environment. Keep in mind that these dogs are encouraged to fight and do so in a large part to please their owners. These dogs if left to their own would be perfectly capable of negotiating their way out of a fight at some point or another, it just may take a bit longer than "normal dogs" for one to decide it wants to stop if both were strong willed. That isn’t much different from what would be expected if two alpha Wolves were to be placed in close quarters, one would eventually submit, but it would certainly be more explosive and longer in duration than an alpha omega meeting. I agree with that completely. I really think that the result is more accurately described as potential rather than tendencies (unless you believe that humans are born tabula rasa while dogs are not?). Drive & Gameness can be present without those qualities ever being encouraged to be used along with aggression towards other dogs or people. Otherwise it would be extremely difficult to socialize a game bred dog, which is not really the case. From my personal experience I've had a MUCH easier time socializing my game bred APBT than I did with either of my Siberian Huskies. How so? Where is the incompatibility? This is why so many dogs today are worthless from a working standpoint. I agree. I would say that Gameness is separate from aggression. All dogs have the capacity for displaying and acting with aggression, but not all would be considered game. Also Gameness can be displayed in non-aggressive activities to some extent (you mentioned sled pulling as one). Fighting (which obviously is aggressive) is considered by many to be the ultimate test for Gameness as it’s about as stressful and strenuous (mentally & physically) a test there is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_(dog) for a fairly good definition of the quality.
  7. Aspect b. is not quite correct. It is actually the propensity to not be the one to initiate descalation which is the desired trait. If you read through the common rules that are used for pit fighting you will see that descalation behaviors end the fight. When those behaviors are exibited the dog that showed signs of wanting to stop is given the choice to stop or continue, if it does not wish to continue the fight is over and a winner declared. Also, it’s very easy to verify that these intra-species communication skills have not been bred out of fighting dogs. For evidence see: http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dpc/dpchistory.php You're correct, they are different breeding programs. The question is what are the end results of the differences? As a side note (not necessarily a valid point for use in argument): I attend protection classes with my APBT and there is usually at least one GSD that will act aggressively towards people & other dogs unprovoked at some point during the session, And many of these are very expensive dogs from German breeding programs. There are quite a few APBTs that participate and I've never seen that type of behavior from any of them. Not that it couldn't happen, I've just never experienced it. I definitely disagree with the idea that APBTs are not well suited for police/military protection work (or anything other than fighting). Here is an example of why I disagree with this: "Bandog Dread (Ch Bandog Dread, SchH3, IPO3, WH, WDS, CD, TD, U-CDX, S.D.-ducks/sheep) was an American Pit Bull Terrier, owned by Dianne Jessup, that obtained multiple titles in conformation, competition obedience, Schutzhund, weightpull and herding, the most titles obtained by any dog of any breed, ever." - The dog also had a Tracking title as well. http://www.workingpitbull.com/New%20Site%202005/dread.htm Many APBTs are used for the sport of weight-pulling as they are by far the best pullers pound-for-pound. http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=35 http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=45 http://doggpower.com/upf/results/pointstandings2.asp?wc=55 Dianne Jessup also runs an organization that trains and provides dogs (mostly APBTs) for detection work. While originally she worked mostly with rescues at first (a lot of which had been fighters) she is currently building her own breeding program using dogs from a well known line of game bred APBTs. http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbulls1.html My dog is from the same breeder and I can personally attest to the fact that he is not "dangerous, plain and simple", but has an incredibly stable temperament. The idea that dogs bred to be fighters are inherently dangerous is pure urban myth. From http://www.lawdogsusa.org/whypitbullspage2.html:" Q: "But aren't pit bulls "inherently dangerous"? A: If you think so, then consider the facts: In 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 according to the American Temperament Test Society breed statistics, the "pit bull" (American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire and Staffordshire bull) out performed the golden retriever, a breed noted for its gentle temperament. The truth? This is a breed that loves people. " Aggressive dogs are much more often than not acting out of fear, anyone breeding specifically for aggression in any dog is going to end up with a dog that isn't worth much from a working (including fighting) standpoint.
  8. Well, certainly someone who is involved in dog fighting would interested in breeding a better fighting dog for themselves, and also potentially earning money through stud fees, sale of pups etc. That is my main argument as to why it would be against a dog owner/breeder's interests to allow an animal to die in a fight. This was poor word choice on my part. Certainly testing by means of the fight is for obvious reasons the best test when making breeding selections with the end goal of a better fighting dog. This is only a true "value" if one were to have no moral objections to the dog fight. It could be argued that the same traits that make a good fighting dog are the same traits that lead to exceptional ability in other forms of work. This is difficult to argue as it inevitably ends up in a "which breed is best" type of debate. (I don't wish to enter into this debate BTW ) This also leads to the argument of how to best compare the abilities of two athletes in their overall athletic ability. If fighting were the definitive way to determine the superior athlete, then this could be seen as value even if the end goal was not a dog that would be fought. I don't know definitively that fighting is the best method for comparing overall athletic ability between two athletes; but it is viewed that way by many, hence their perceived value. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here, so I'm going to respond with the assumption that you're alluding to some of the common things mentioned in news articles regarding training of fighting dogs. A game bred fighting dog does not need to be "trained"(by people) to fight and they don't have to be beaten and abused to "make them mean", or fed gunpowder to "make them crazy" like we commonly here about in the news. The stories in the news that speak of "Bait animals" etc are a combination of urban legend and idiots that actually attempt those types of "training" methods thinking that they work. Generally the only "training" a dog would receive is what is called "rolling" when a more experienced fighter is used to give a novice dog experience. These would be short skirmishes that try not allow either dog to be injured but allow for the dog to basically learn through doing to develop his/her fighting skills. As to the benefits of crossing a fighting breed with another breed, I'm not sure what you mean. Dog breeding is fairly complex and randomly breeding dogs rarely gets the desired results. Also the bull-terrier and Akita aren't really considered to be fighting dogs anymore as they haven't been game bred for quite some time and I can't imagine either would ever be considered for use in dog fighting today. I certainly agree that there are other methods of testing dogs. And again, I'm not personally positive what the best method is. However my main point was in showing how one could possibly come to see a value in fighting dogs. That value relies on the answer to the questions you laid out: Someone asked earlier how could there possibly be value in fighting dogs. If someones answer to question b. is fighting, then that is how someone could value fighting dogs.
  9. I feel the need to clarify some things in regards to dog fighting as I think there are quite a few uninformed assumptions being thrown around as fact. First off I must say that I personally do not condone dog fighting and have no affiliation with the activity. I have a lot of affection for dogs and animals in general, it bothers me terrible when I see any animal mistreated. I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject as it interests me from a historical point of view in regards to the development of the fighting breeds (I recommend books by Richard Stratton for a historical look at fighting dogs). I own an American Pit Bull Terrier and realize that dog fighting was the driving factor behind of shaping of this incredible breed of dog. In reading though this discussion I saw numerous statements making it sound like death was the usual, even desirable outcome of any dogfight. I think this is very misleading. While there is no doubt that due to the underground nature of the activity there are surely plenty of dogfights that are carried out with death as the end result; however, that is not always the case, and I would imagine that these type of fights are mostly the less organized type of events. Since the comparison to boxing has been used already I'll continue with that analogy. Think about the difference between a professional boxing match, maybe even a title fight, compared to an small underground boxing match. Would any professional manager let his fighter continue in a fight where he was getting destroyed and risk permanent injury knowing that the fighter has a long career ahead of him? Also, it has been argued that there is no value in fighting a dog. Again, while I don't personally feel that dogs should be fought, I can see some merit in it as follows: Fighting is the ultimate test of a dogs gameness, which is the name given to the traits that lead to the never-give-up will to continue in a given task. It is also one of, if not the best test of overall athleticism. (Same can be said of human fighting) With that in mind, when deciding which dogs to use in a breeding program that strives to build the ultimate canine athlete/warrior, it is clear that fighting is the best method to determine whether or not a dog is a good candidate for breading. One important thing to note is that a dog has to be alive (I suppose the exception would be males that have had sperm set aside for later use) in order to be used in a breeding program (Think Stud Fees $$$$) Along with that thought it is also very important to note that just because a dog looses a fight does not mean that it is worthless and may as well die in the pit. That would be like saying Joe Frazier may as well have died when he lost to Ali the first time. It is very possible (especially if the opponents were well matched) that the result is a fight in which both dogs performed incredibly well and have been proven to be near equals. Anyone who let one of those dogs die would be an idiot, whether viewed from a purely financial standpoint or simply from the viewpoint of wanting to continue to use the dog for breeding the next generations. For some evidence to contradict the statements that make it sound like Death is the only possible outcome to a fight here is a link to what would be common rules during an organized match: http://www.gamedogs.com/pitrules.htm - see if you can count the number of possible scenarios that would lead to end of a match with both dogs living. Ultimately, as ugly as dog fighting is, it like any other activity that has been pushed into the underground crime world would be radically different if it were brought into the light. Even though there would be a huge number of people opposed to legalized dog fighting (and understandably so), It would ultimately be better for the dogs. Especially if the events were televised as I'm sure this would drive towards conservative referee practices just as has happened with Boxing.
×
×
  • Create New...